• dibco1 2020 discusionfsm input49 en

last modified September 27, 2020 by facilitfsm

DIBCO1 initiative FSM/WSF | >>          

Discussion 2020EN  |  Index  |          



 | @-1   @+1  |  Comment    
  Dibco-seul-mini.png   EN - ES - FR - PT 

Commenting statements in   informal  discusion in IC  sept 25th   

Pierre George 

@1  help create or become  - @2  a common dynamic - @3  consensus on method - @4  since 2017 - @5  practice and propose


1/ let us hope that the wsf will find a way to create or become the political subject as a collective voice to be recognized in serious moments of humanity.

  • That is the core of the discussion : WSF as a space -tool- process  option 1/ to help those willing to strengthen  o build a political subject  - or  option  2/  WSF to become a political actor itself
  • Those supporting  the realism, robustness  and potential of the open space concept  have no problem to cooperate with people with  option 1 (using WSF to  create or strengthen a global political subject  ) ,  and have problems with option 2 (  WSF  to become a political subject  itself)    which is changing the nature of WSF –  Here a  text  answering  some questions in blue about being a space  http://openfsm.net/projects/dibco1/dibco1-2020-discusionfsm-input46-en  part A

2/ unfortunately, this frustration has not yet clearly proposed an alternative dynamic, which could be better built collectively.( rita) - 

  •  There is a  “way forward proposal” of focusing on what is our “effective realistic consensus area”  in IC WSF, i-e  facilitating together the “common open space for encounters process”,  where our political diversity can  be accommodated
  • The proposal is to FOCUS ON BETTER IMPLEMENTING the open space concept   that is completing the only format of participation we have  i-e“ self organized activity “  with others  ( about accessibility , action visibility ,  and process visibility) and implementing them in wsf 2021 process context.  This  might create  an “implementation dynamic”,  following  up on the dynamic of the consultation which has brought  IC active members  from January to “now”  
  • referring to  an intervention for a  workshop in Finnish social forum about participation formats http://openfsm.net/projects/dibco1/dibco1-2020-discusionfsm-input36-en


3/ serious situations in which consensus does not exist on the method, although it exists on the defended agenda. 

  • It is not sure a consensus on a yet unformulated defended agenda exists inside IC  in content or in principle, and it is not clear which arguments would be used to refuse to focusing on better  implementing the current  “consensus/consent ” view  if this is  a realistic way to move forward ( point 2)
  • We know that willing to change basic identity of WSF as a “open space of encounters for effective interlinking” will be divisive  ( point 1)-  
  • The responsible way to go  forward is working in the “consensus area”  and IMPROVE THE IMPLEMENTATION of the WSF process as it is conceptually conceived -  and see the results of this joint effort at the end of 2021. For this, there are concrete proposals on the table. (see point 4)
  • referring to  intervention on sept12 discussion http://openfsm.net/projects/ic-extended/online-202009-ampliado1-extension/#17 


4/ almost everyone asks for action, and every time we approach some perspective of change, there are people to tell us no, that we have 20-year-old rules

  • Rather than saying “no”, the motivation is elaborating  on   the “WHAT” : what  is  “open space of encounter” vision, which may have been not formalized enough , with the intention to convey  a participation narrative  and a vocabulary, about what WSF process is and what it is not, and what can be done in it, how it can be used.    See article here http://openfsm.net/projects/gti-and-wsf/gtiandwsf-farewelltowsf-discussion-input7a
    • Organizations present in IC in 2001, or when joining later on IC as  WSF  facilitating body, committed to support   this “what”  and spread the vision of WSF principles. Some organizations, or persons, may have changed opinion since then  about those principles, but this does not imply spreading distorted presentation of those principles.
  • It would more productive,  when   “ASKING FOR ACTION”, to present argumentation  pro and con about WHAT IS CONCRETELY PROPOSED  SINCE 2017 :  focusing of “format of self-organized participation  specifically  proposed to address the “perceived action visibility deficit in wsf process”  -  and TAKE THE  STANDPOINT OF PARTICIPANTS in the process, instead of reducing  the issue of  action related content in WSF process  to  an IC deliberation process


5/ may our past practices become experience and we can build assertive, creative, proactive and critical proposals to look forward, that the horizon that is visualized allows us to walk together 

  • Agreeing  that there is a lot that can be done to : 
  • 1/ better implement the “open space of encounter for interlinking for effective actions”  on occasion of WSF 2021 ( see point 4)  ,
    • This question about  “visibility of actions from participants” could be relevantly  INTRODUCED IN THE  IC AGENDA OF UPCOMING MEETING 10 AND 11  OCTOBER -   and also  a similar  question  about “improved accessibility of the WSF process” or about  “ improved presence and  visibility of the WSF process in social media”
  •  2/ better use WSF  as A SPACE  WHERE ARTICULATIONS CAN BE BUILT, in a self-organized way, by groups of participating entities, with the experienced help  and proactive initiative of activists, in and out of IC member organizations, acting in a networked and decentralized mode.
    • This is also a theme that can be proposed for a round of discussion in  next IC meeting  -  “how to  exchange views and intentions and possibly cooperate  between IC member entities in contributing to build or help build articulation in  wsf 2021 context ?